Of course you didn’t think that: you have a certain degree of mental illness as far as this issue goes. This is pretty much verified by the fact that you think that the twin paradox is a paradox. You imagine that, despite having the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century working on relativity theory, somehow you have come up with a small mathematical flaw that has been overlooked. This is not a rational conclusion.
This notice is for James S Saint & PhysBang. I don’t care who started what, plus I don’t want to hear it. Stop disrupting this thread and stick to the subject matter. If there is another attack from either of you, there will be a warning issued. Please don’t test my patience on this.
Well while I would seem to disagree with James on some things (specifically certainty levels) If we go around thinking that the things that are said to be “proven” were done by “perfect” scientists, then that makes it hard for new ideas to arise. If one cannot logically show something to be wrong, then that would seem to suggest they don’t really understand it well themselves. But if Logic outside of simply referencing considered-reputable sources still doesn’t work i would say there might be an issue of refusal to listen on the part of the other… in the end it is often hard to tell. And if one is not willing to spend the time logically discussing a point then there is no point in discussing.
Something.
Rather than nothing.
Of course the consensus of physicists for quite a while was that there was no before. Now things are a little more complicated in that community.
Physicists imbue the image of a confused but doubtless Vatican.
I suppose it couldn’t be rotating/moving. What does this show?
Yes, that does seem rather paradoxical. It also seems as though the back end of the object would have to be far behind its own starting point while the front end is well ahead of its destination. I don’t think this should ever happen in relativity. The universe shouldn’t contract so much that the distance of the journey ends up being less than the length of the object making that journey.
Another good question for a science forum (this one I’m actually going to follow up on).
Exactly!
Well it makes wonder if really all things are moving as such, such that near the center their tangential velocity is such that the object is slow and thus like mass but as things move farther out the quality of the overall object change such as to become a magnetic field and then later light due to differences in tangential velocity…
Link to the forum if you can.
one thought on objects reaching light speed that i have wonder, and as might be suggested by what you said, is that when something achives light speed and thus perhaps what light is would be an object stretched endlessly or to the tip of the ever stretching light beam…
Then I might ask what would be outside of the All-mass (the universe aspect that contains all mass)?
And pose the hypothesis that it would be a true complete vacuum, possibly even if the All-mass was infinite in size.
And then I might ask what affect there might be on a mass in being in a complete vacuum?
Then hypothesize that it might be a universal expansion such that what we perceived as space between things like the earth and the moon, was even expanding, as it has mass in it.
And then Hypothesize that though such would not be observably evident with respect to expansion there might be a moving-towards-things-effect that might then be called gravity…
::Imagine two spheres in space next to each other but not touching. if the where both expanding at the same rate, and the observer was moving away at the same rate, they would not appear to be getting smaller as normal due to the expansion but they would nonetheless appear to be approaching eachother, for as the two things expand they would eventually touch…
They were just lazy then.
Wow, that’s a strange theory. Can you explain that in a little more detail?
scienceforums.net/topic/5825 … id__615063
I think this needs some fleshing out too (if you would). Just so you know, light takes the form of a wave. Also, length contraction would suggest things get “squished” the faster they go.
Another very strange idea… and interesting. Still, I think you need to flesh it out some more. I’m not sure what you mean by the mass of the universe being a “true vacuum”. Space, yes, but mass?
Lizbethrose said: "
Stoic Gaurdian then said: “Something.”
Moreno then said, “Of course the consensus of physicists for quite a while was that there was no before. Now things are a little more complicated in that community.”
To which SG added “They were just lazy then.”
Not lazy, SG, they just had to start somewhere, so they started at nothing and went from there. Ancient Greek philosophers believed matter can not be created out of nothing. Is this still true? I know matter can be converted to energy in the form of heat and light, but then the heat and light dissipate (I assume in all directions) and become infinitesimal particles.
I’ve also learned that what we call the BB wasn’t exactly the beginning of the ‘creation of the universe’ but was, instead, what happened nanoseconds after the process was complete, iow the BB was the result of something that we really don’t understand–a singularity.
To me, energy had to be present, at least. I’ve also learned that our ‘laws of physics’–with some exceptions that go into relativity and special relativity–apply to ‘closed’ systems. That seems to imply ‘our’ universe is a ‘closed’ system. Iow, it has a boundary.
Then there’s the question of “Black Holes.” Is ‘our’ universe the result of an earlier universe, sucked into and then spat out by a black hole? That could lead to a theory of multiverses that exist, not in parallel to ours, but in a different time and a totally different space. Again, I don’t know.
And maybe that’s the most correct answer–We just don’t know and, possibly, may never know. Rather than spending time and research trying to ‘know’ the ‘unknowable’, let’s start with what we can measure and, therefore, ‘know.’
As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about general cosmology–and I certainly don’t know about the various branches of hard sciences that have been born in the last few decades.
I asked Moreno if a cyclic BB to BC was a way to ‘visualize’ the eternal–infinity. Some people need visualizations to settle their minds about incomprehensible constructs.
A) matter is not created out of nothing.
B) energy dissipates, but doesn’t disappear.
C) a black-hole is merely an extremely large particle.
JSS. didn’t I already say most of that. And how do you know what a ‘Black Hole’ is or isn’t, since no one else knows?
I apologize, Sir. You and Abstract/Valley have shown no scientific credibility, to me, in your posts. You’ve shown a lot of yourselves–but not credibility.
You’ve co-opted my thread, which was meant to start a conversation about cosmology and philosophy, and turned it, instead, into a spot-light on you both–as a result, neither of you have contributed anything of substance to the op. I doubt if you ever can; so I’m hoping my last post ends it.
Abstract’s discussion with gib and Moreno has very little to do with me.
But your idea of “credibility”, I’m sure doesn’t either.
If you wanted a private discussion with only people you like, you should have said so.
[size=150]Big Bang - only for members that lizbethrose likes[/size]
Strawman alert–Strawman alert–Strawman alert!
May I also mention ad hominem?
Look back over the posts, JSS. Just who is talking to whom?
You, JSS, YOU, who maintain pure logic is the only way to achieve ‘truth,’ answers, and everything else that matters in life, should start practicing what you preach.
I haven’t looked at the history of the dispute, but whoever has the idea that pure logic is the only way to achieve truth is confused. Pure logic needs a non-logical process to connect its mathematics to the world. Otherwise it remains math like and useless.
They weren’t saying there was nothing before either. There was no before. Time and space began together. We may think this can’t be, but then we would probably think that many QM phenomena couldn’t be, except they continue to occur and have been tested untold times, we have even developed technology based on them.
I think in generaly there is way to much faith in deduction. We seem to forget that deduction takes place in language and language has all sorts of built in confusions.
The idea popped into my head relatively instantly, but let me start with how the thought came to my mind though some of the processing is seemingly less logical and sensical:
I was thinking about light itself and how we can’t seem to make anything go to the speed of light, and that such would then make no sense that light is being created by anything. And then I began to think well maybe light isn’t being created by anything (which I later though otherwise as I’ll get to) and in so thinking had an even odder thought that light seems to diffusely reflect off everything despite beam width. which would indicate that it may not actually be particular in nature at least in so far as being like unto the mass of things as we are familiar like earth and what not. And so I got to think of the thought that if light diffusely reflects off everything, then whenever it comes into contact with anything, while it might have a primary direction of thus specular reflection, it would still diffuse to some degree off of what it reflects, (diffuse meaning reflect to some degree in all directions.) what that got me thinking about was the idea that if such was the case there is typically mass at all places, no complete vacuum, and as such, while light may not touch the “physical” mass it may touch the magnetic field (and thereby touches the thing in so far as touching an aspect of the thing, or aspect of it’s affect.) when it does so it diffusely reflects in all directions to some degree, which would signify that when light pervades in any primary direction it diffuses off all masses in that direction and thus reflects to some degree in all directions. Which then signified to me that light could actually be pervading all places simply because any light diffuses in any direction. Then I got to the really odd thought and highly speculative. that in reality light not being created by “physical” mass, must actually be pervading all things (though later I derived a cause) and thus things like the sun might not actually be producing the light. Then that made me question how could it then be possible for light to seem to be emitted by the sun. And then I got to thinking about mirrors. a mirror reflects better than other things because of its particle arrangement such as to reflect light more specularly rather than diffusing it and making it muddy. So I thought maybe a star isn’t making the light, but so ridiculously dense that its particles are ridiculously in lined such that the sun is just more reflective than any mirror we know of. And as such it reflects the light that is being diffused/pervaded everywhere quite easily and highly specularly. And then I got to thinking about solar flares and I still haven’t figured out how those might fit in, but it could be a result of the outflow of highly dense reflective liquid-like material of the sun.(but I don’t let one thing stop me from theorizing I take it farther and see if it fits elsewhere and then resolve what one might call the prime numbers) So the next thought I had were black holes, and I thought that such might not make sense except they do emit light just across particular spectrums. They call it Hawking Radiation(radiation is a form of light). Now what this got me thinking is that such might actually make sense because as that star got denser there are several possible outcomes. One the star could be achieving a reflective state where it only reflected certain spectrum-aspects of light. But then I would de-simplify that and say that what may actually be happening is that it is simply reflecting more light and due to the small relative size of the actual “physical” mass the light being reflective at the lower side of the spectrum is canceling out or mixing such as to become seemingly of the higher end of the spectrum, primarily at a farther distance…(but I decided that wasn’t resolved either, another prime, move on…)
And then I got to thinking: how the heck does light simply pervade all things? how can it actually be every where, what causes it? And my first thought was of course …God…And that may be the case if you take the causes far enough back… but then I thought of what I have been discussing with others. That the field-of-affect of any “particle” or “thing” must be ever-pervading. In other words a thing must be affecting all things to some degree no matter how far. The idea I would think is that though the affect might be less as distance increases it doesn’t actually ever reach zero, though by our perception it may seem the effect is so small. And then the issue was raised that light would have to be the limit of the speed of the passage of affect. And while I personally think that is wrong. I do think that it is more likely to be true. but that nonetheless the field-of-affect of all things would be ever distant because mass or the nature of things has always existed, and thus the affect of anything, would have had enough time to pervade all that has existed by now.
So what this got me to thinking was that it might be silly to think of things as merely a “physical” mass, as when we define the “physical” aspect of things we actually have the tendency to use light. we say our body is such-and-such a size…we use light…we say an electron is so and so big we may use light in some instances but in others perhaps we use electro charge emittance or something like that, but nonetheless we tell the particular size by a particular affect the thing has in response to the affects of other things. So Anyways I thought it might be better to think of a thing as being completely it’s field-of-affect. In other words, this atom at the start of this sentence while it may have a specifically perceivable “physical” mass, it pervades all things in so far as it’s field of affect goes. which then signifies that all things pervade all things such unto infinity or the extent of the universe, I imagine regardless of size… And then what this got me thinking is that the universe/All might be relativistically moving with regards to what is outside of it. In other words there is nothing outside of it so its movement would be thought of as indeterminate. but I might say it is not that it isn’t specifically of any nature, but rather it is of all natures of movement, and thus we can’t assert a specific one, and thus it would be fairly called indeterminate. in other words suggesting that it is by some perception at least, moving in all directions or enough directions at the same time and doing so at all spped one of which is an infinite speed relative to the exterior. it is like saying that the universe =1 the outside =0. and while we say 1/0 is indeterminate it really can be anything, 1/0 could =1 or 2 or 3 or 4…and so on even to infinity. As such that would signify that all “masses”(which I would really say is a definition of a thing by a particular aspect) are really rotating/moving, in all ways in all directions. and as such the exterior of the overall object, what might could be called the exterior of the field-of-affect, is farthest out and thus the part having the actual infinite tangential velocity, infinite at least relative to the rest. I would think that there speeds might be infinite as well, but of an infinite degree still less than that of the exterior and thus perceptively/relatively finite. As such this would indicate that the various aspects of “masses” that we define are really nothing but aspects, perhaps actual Physical parts of the same thing that are actually a result of the movement of the object. And this fits with other observations, like the fact that we are moving…the earth around the sun the sun around the galaxy and the galaxy probably, or at least possibly around something else…
The Main prime, or flaw, I know and then saw, was that if everything was moving/rotating in all directions then things wouldn’t seem to be near each other. or if the earth was say rotating the same way it would appear different then it was now or maybe nothing would appear at all. But then I got to realize that my theory itself suggested that the rotation would be slower the farther inside from the outside things were, at least relative to other things at a different distance relative to the outside. and it is even possible that the relative distance from the outside is infinite. so movement of such may not seem obvious at all, even noticeable, and perhaps overall un-sensible.
Anyways there is my thought…I posted another theory I had on gravity on this page: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=175689
James picked on it, but I have a feeling he focused on the invalidity of the “primes” those things I had unresolved, and then ignored the possibility instead of considering how those things might fit in…but IDK
scienceforums.net/topic/5825 … id__615063
i don’t know the value of the thought as it may not be possible to achieve light speed such as to make any aparticular actuality be a stretching thing…
But My thought is that as light speed is achieved the particle itself accelerates more at the tip first and then slowely equally thoroughout the rest of the body. but I think that it may be that as light speed is achieved that mass would begin to stretch more and more as more and more began to speed away relative to the aspects of it that had yet to reach the speed of light.
But part of this idea I have is that light is rather a result of a particle or thing that is moving at an infinite speed rather than an actual thing. Like a sonic boom. In otherwords, a thing might have been or always been moving at the speed of infinity, but light is the maximum affect that such a thing has on its surroundings. But that theory has a lot of holes. Like how does light then reflect off things? you would think that something going an infinite speed would either go through the masses or push them away. I would think more likely go through, which would then suggest that the light reflectance was a reflectance of an affect, which would be odd and seemingly non-sensical. And then there is that showing that gravity can pull on light…But then the seemingly pulling affect could actually be a result in a slowing of things that results in a difference in the pervadence of light such as to make it seem to bend…IDK (But thinking about it again it may be possible that all things are moving at an infinite speed but somethings not so relative to each other and as such, reflectance may occur when two infinite-speed objects collide even thought the relative collision is infinite…And though in reality the object would have really reflected off things long ago, as the infinite speed moving thing would have already gone practically everywhere it could…)
I wasn’t saying that the mass was a vaccuum but that outside of All mass. In otherwords beyond the universe, in other words beyond the big-bang state, regardless of size ofthe universe/big-bang state, it would be plausible that there was a nothingness, beyond it, and emptyness, a complete absense of mass, and thus a complete vacuum. Again I discussed this further along with some unexplained issues here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=175689
Don’t think I have credibility, I would say I probably don’t. I’m more of the type to theorize, regardless of the typical idea of how things work. I’like to ask what questions that pop in my head and get to the bottom of things utill I understand it to a point where I don’t have questions…But I always seem to have questions…
Sorry, I’ll try to take the discussion elsewhere…I’ll make this thread: Non-absolutively-asserted “theories” of what might be scienc
Link: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=175786